Road Cycling - Compact geometry, hype or helpful?

Hi all,

I have been noticing a LOT of compact geometry road bikes lately, and wonder about this new trend.

I figure its either a) manufacturers can make fewer sizes of frame to fit more people or b) it really is a superior technology.

Being a cynic, I tend to go for a, but would like to hear from some that think B is the case.

thanks,

Jester

P.S. I realize on a hybrid or MTB compact geometry might be for standover, but on a pure road bike I can't see that being a big deal on a properly sized frame.

Total hype. We're being hoodwinked with these. John Cobb's wind tunnel testing on these frames and the seatpost that go with them have clearly shown that in terms of aerodynamics you gain zippo.

And the supposedly higher stifness of the frame is severely compromised by that long-long post that sticks way out - like a sore thumb :D

The bottom line, these frames are not worth the premium they're being charged.

Den Brewers

- What's your favourite film?
- Kodak.

Compact Geometry...............hmmmmmmmmm................ well................hmmmmmmmmm....................trying to be nice about this.................
Ok I'll tell you what I found.

I tried a Litespeed Sienna and a Tuscany.

The tuscany felt stiffer and more positive and lively when I was climbing /accelerating in a seated postion and with just a hint of flex while standing.

The Sienna felt loose and sloppy during seated clibing and acceleration and stiff and lively out of the saddle.

With a similar spec and sized for me the Tuscany was lighter and these were both 2002 models. This yrs Sienna has a carbon rears tay which adds weight, not reduces it.

Manufacturers have taken it too heart because they can rationalise the amount of frames they produce. Overall there is no gain is stiffness as this is largely determined by the downtube size and shape. So where is the gain??

Nowhere, it's hype, but some will like the out of saddle stiffness. I did'nt so I bought the Tuscany. depends on your style really.

My current bike (K2 Mach 2.0) has a compact geometry frame and at first I didn't like the look of it, but over time it has grown on me. The next bike I'll build up will be a commuting bike using a Fuji Ace frame. It does not have the compact geometry so it'll be interesting having one of each to see which one I end up liking more.

As far as your survey goes - I think the manufacturers are loving it all the way to the bank. They no longer have to make 54, 56, 58 cm frames, etc, instead they can offer XS, S, M, L and XL.

Zack

After 25 years of racing and commuting on standard frames I recently switched to a compact frame. I don't know about the aero aspect of it, but, the bike sprints, corners, and climbs better than any other frame I've had (all 12 of em)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by jester69


I figure its either a) manufacturers can make fewer sizes of frame to fit more people or b) it really is a superior technology.

I agree with you. I think its a way manufacturers can save money. Saving money isn't a bad thing but what scares me is the number of companies that don't even have a standard geometry road bike in their line up. Even Italian bike companies. What's the world coming to?

I came to the road from mountain bikes and bmx. I had ridden "regular" road bikes before but, I was not really serious about riding then so, I can't compare. Anyhoo, I bought a Schwinn Fastback with the compact geometry. I love it. It wasn't looks, or stiffness, or any of that. It all came down to price and I'm happy with my purchase. I would have to agree though, that I think it's all about the companies making more jack.

Originally posted by Bikedud
[QUOTE]Originally posted by jester69
Saving money isn't a bad thing but what scares me is the number of companies that don't even have a standard geometry road bike in their line up. Even Italian bike companies. What's the world coming to?

I am sure that compact frame design is here to stay and will (IMHO) become the majority in the future. Why? Because no one can *really* prove it to be inferior or superior than traditional design. If some people find it inferior, most likely they can't offer scientific proof. It's all about how you feel. If it feels different than what you used to, most likely you'd label it as bad. If you didn't have any prior knowledge about how a road bike should feel or look like, I bet you wouldn't mind compact design. As long as it fits, right?

On the other hand, manufacturers can easily quantify the cost-saving and the wider market reach they gonna get if they go compact.

So, unless those who ride traditional consistently defeat those who ride compact, the world gonna go compact :) Traditional frames are gonna be *niche* products, just like singlespeed and steel frames (well, it's probably not quite there yet, but I bet those who ride steel bikes feel more proud than those who ride aluminum. That's a sign)

"So, unless those who ride traditional consistently defeat those who ride compact, the world gonna go compact Traditional frames are gonna be *niche* products, just like singlespeed and steel frames (well, it's probably not quite there yet, but I bet those who ride steel bikes feel more proud than those who ride aluminum. That's a sign)"

Well if the pro peleton is anything to go by, most of those blokes are still on traditional geometry. Cannondale does not see the benefit and certain Ti frmae manufacturers are only into compact because theres a market need/want.
and the cost saving thing is really marketing. Giant claimed they saved Once money by going compact. The reality is that most of the riders are using compacts custom made for them!!!

Originally posted by TimB

Well if the pro peleton is anything to go by, most of those blokes are still on traditional geometry. Cannondale does not see the benefit and certain Ti frmae manufacturers are only into compact because theres a market need/want.
and the cost saving thing is really marketing. Giant claimed they saved Once money by going compact. The reality is that most of the riders are using compacts custom made for them!!!

I am not just talking about pro riders, but all riders.

The compact frames used by ONCE riders may be custom-made, but the amount of material used is still less than custom-made traditional frames. So, let say they only save $10 a bike, technically they don't lie when they say "we save ONCE money by going compact" :D

hmmm...imagine $10 saving per frame. If you produce 1 million frames a year,....

Originally posted by denbrewers
Total hype. We're being hoodwinked with these. John Cobb's wind tunnel testing on these frames and the seatpost that go with them have clearly shown that in terms of aerodynamics you gain zippo.

And the supposedly higher stifness of the frame is severely compromised by that long-long post that sticks way out

O.K., these are the types of responses that interest me. No offense to anyone, but I couldn't care less about subjective personal experiences. Give me the data, baby. I want empirical info. People that bought these things will likely defend them with zeal, as I probably would.

Can I get a link to the testing that you refer to?

Originally posted by txroadie
I came to the road from mountain bikes

So did I but I saw MTBs go from traditional non-sloping top-tubes to sloping and then even more sloping (as front suspension started taking hold). While with MTBs, there was a technical performance reason behind sloping top-tubes, I don't believe that there really is a valid one for road bikes.

Originally posted by firebolt
I am not just talking about pro riders, but all riders.

The compact frames used by ONCE riders may be custom-made, but the amount of material used is still less than custom-made traditional frames. So, let say they only save $10 a bike, technically they don't lie when they say "we save ONCE money by going compact" :D

hmmm...imagine $10 saving per frame. If you produce 1 million frames a year,....

The saving in material may be $10 but the labour cost of building each bike custom is £30 per hour and it takes around 15-20 manhours per frame. So by building custom bikes they arenot saving any money.
Also the materials are purchased per metre length or per tube. So if you use slightly less material in a compact where is the saving because the material is already paid for.
Theres higher wastage in producing compacts.:crash:

While there is some technical merit to the compact frame design, IMHO I feel compelled to believe their arrival at the LBS has more to do with meeting the annual objectives established for marketing departments of most bicycle manufacturers.

Never forget that bicycle manufacturers -- at least the ones still operating under the own names -- are businesses first and technology houses second. The mantra of operations is streamline and reduce variability -- if a manufacturer only offered compact frames they could certainly achieve this goal. However, I don't see too many builders out there eliminating their more traditional frame offerings (yet) so if anything they've only succeeded in reducing a few intermediate frame sizes from a new line of products or, put another way, they've only introduced a few new frames to their entire line.

So, in my narrow view of the world I believe the "new and exciting" guys in the marketing departments are the ones who did the business case on the compact frames. The draw is "something new" for the potential buyers who have to have the latest and greatest. But, perhaps more important is that the compact frame sizing is more closely aligned to the largest potential new market for road bikes -- that would be folks who got into cycling via the popularity of the mountain bike and who are either looking to diversify or to finally get a proper bike for riding on the road: which is all that they did with their MTB.

If I lost you on the "more closely aligned" angle, go take a look at the way most mountain bike frames look today and how they are sized. Now look at a compact road frame. See any similarities? Familiar (as in lots of standover clearance) is good, whereas having a top tube jambed into your "tweeners" may not be as readily acceptable for the road bike newbie.

Anyway, without parsing it down too much further I think you get the drift of my take on the compact frame. If you or someone shopping for a road bike finds it attractive and comfortable to ride, all the better for cycling as an industry and the consumers who have yet another option.

good point mr livngood and probably very very close to the truth.

Cannondale's take on compact frames:
http://www.cannondale.com/bikes/innovation/sloping.html

Just something else to chew on....

Originally posted by TimB

Also the materials are purchased per metre length or per tube. So if you use slightly less material in a compact where is the saving because the material is already paid for.
Theres higher wastage in producing compacts.:crash:

If you are a small frame manufacturer who produce 10 frames a month, yes, you woudn't care about the amount of material you would save by building compact frames. We are talking about mass-produced products here where 1 cent saving per frame can really add up. And I am sure they have a group of people figuring out exactly the amount of materials needed to build *n* number of frame.

Originally posted by livngood
Cannondale's take on compact frames:
http://www.cannondale.com/bikes/innovation/sloping.html

Just something else to chew on....

If only they had joined the compact bandwagon and saved a lot on manufacturing cost, they wouldn't have gone bankrupt .... j/k :D

Those people are figuring out how many tubes of a certain grade and dimetion etc to purchase from the manufacturer.
Tubesets are purchased as finished product. All the bike company has to do is cut them to size and mitre the tube ends, weld them together and heat treat.
Wheres the saving in that?

The saving is in the amount of different tubesets they need to purchase and thus qualify for bulk discount on only 4 sizes. That saving can be substantial but it's not always carried over to the end user. The biggest cost of the finished product is the marketing and distribution costs, advertising costs and warehousing. the saving in tubing costs for a large manufacturer is minimal. They save money by buying fewer different tubesets, fewer different frames as stock, so stock management is lower and cheaper. easier to absorb the costs of rejects.

So lets not argue the same point. Yes they save the manufacturer money, but that does not make them better for the end user, In terms of cost or function.

Originally posted by firebolt
If only they had joined the compact bandwagon and saved a lot on manufacturing cost, they wouldn't have gone bankrupt .... j/k :D

No, if Cannondale USA didn't jump into the motorsports area with their motocross and quads they wouldn't have gone bankrupt...

The bicycle business is and has remained a solid source of revenue for Cannondale USA and the other Cannondale bicycle companies located throughout the world.

Originally posted by TimB
So lets not argue the same point. Yes they save the manufacturer money, but that does not make them better for the end user, In terms of cost or function.

I agree... it would not make them any better... but it would not necessarily make them any worst either. It's all about choices, and we, as consumers, are benefited by that.

Interesting comment made by a custom bike builder:

http://www.spectrum-cycles.com/616.htm

Compact frames are developing a sizable following in the cycling community. As a compact frame owner myself, I appreciate the nimble liveliness afforded by the design. Like all bicycles, the handling characteristics of compacts starts with the geometry so let’s take a look.

In designing the our first compact prototype back in mid ’98, we wanted to discover what if any the real world differences there would be between traditional and compact frame designs. Our first compact frame (still my favorite frame) was an exact replica of my then current titanium frame in materials and geometry save for the sloping top tube. I designed it with a severe (17 degree) slope to ensure that any differences would be as obvious as possible. We had assumed that the new frame would be somewhat stiffer and lighter. It was lighter (about 4 ounces) but it was not appreciatively stiffer. Although we were able to measure a slight increase in stiffness, it was too slight to feel. The big change came when I stood to accelerate or climb. As I stood up, the bike appeared to loose three pounds. The inertia of the bike as I rocked it back and fourth was reduced so much that I felt as though I was on a twelve-pound bike. Interestingly, when seated, a compact frame feels exactly like a traditional design. The compact design has no effect on handling beyond the increases responsiveness during climbing and accelerating.

Not all compact frames are sized XS, S, M, L, and XL. I ride a compact frame road bike and it is a 52cm. Compares very closely to the 50cm traditional frame road bike I had before it. I like the sloping top tube. It allows me to ride a larger frame because I am a shorter rider. I notice absolutely NO difference in the ride between the too. I am much more comfortable in my set up, however. Those who like to "trash" compact frames are just traditionalists. That's ok. But just because you don't care for the alternative doesn't mean that there is no merit to the design.
;)

Originally posted by jester69
Hi all,

I have been noticing a LOT of compact geometry road bikes lately, and wonder about this new trend.

I figure its either a) manufacturers can make fewer sizes of frame to fit more people

Well, you said it... That's what I think... I cannot really see much sense in this exept "a".

I will never ride a compact frame, All hype. Just my opinion.

Originally posted by easyrider
O.K., these are the types of responses that interest me. No offense to anyone, but I couldn't care less about subjective personal experiences. Give me the data, baby. I want empirical info. People that bought these things will likely defend them with zeal, as I probably would.

Can I get a link to the testing that you refer to?


Here is one that springs to my mind first:

http://www.slowtwitch.com/mainheadings/techctr/compact.html

Is this a compact geometry bike or not, I wonder? Or there is some other thing that is being refered to here as 'compact'?

Den Brewers

aiiiii me good lad thart be a right compact geometry bike ye have there

Let me see...smaller frame, less material, same amount of build/assembly time, and as for my Moots, there is a 0.3 LBS weight difference between the traditional frame and the compact. Oh I forgot one thing, the price was nearly $1000.00 more for the compact. Anybody whom gets suckered into a compact I can only say one thing....da.

Snowblower

I agree with the people who look askance at the "few sizes fit all" approach of companies like Giant.

And I also agree with those who accept compact geometry as a valid approach to solving certain kinds of problems in frame design.

It's a big, wide world out there, and there are almost always more than two answers to a given question.

RichC

Originally posted by denbrewers

And the supposedly higher stifness of the frame is severely compromised by that long-long post that sticks way out - like a sore thumb :D



Pretty cool you should mention this, because I noticed the other day that my seat post flexes quite a bit for being carbon fiber. When I bought my bike I got the smallest frame I could, which means my seat post is out a good bit.

Just curious, why would you buy the smallest frame that you could???

The way I see it, compact geometry is just something new that companies can talk about. They need to continually come up with new ideas to get people excited and wanting to buy a new bike. I don't think there is any real advantage for them, though there may be some disadvantages depending on the bike and rider.....and maybe not. Personally, I prefer traditional geometry and don't care for the look or feel of the compacts (sometimes just seems weird to have that top tube so low) For the most part, if the bike fits I doubt it makes much difference except in certain extreme cases where seatpost flex could be an issue (like a very heavily compacted frame and a flexy post). I won't be buying one anytime soon and I hope that the trend doesn't all but do away with traditional geometry bikes.

Originally posted by slide13
Just curious, why would you buy the smallest frame that you could???


Several reasons come to mind:

[1] May be slightly lighter but this is not always the case as the arguments about longer seatposts and compact-geometry have illustrated.

[2] Stiffer/less flexy frame makes for a more nimble and better accelerating bike.

[3] Higher standover.

Some or all of these may not be important to you but they are to some. I ride a fairly small frame (48cm) even though I could probably jump to a 50cm. As a matter of fact, I would probably have to go with a 50cm in a traditional frame to get the right top-tube. My bike is not compact-geometry but does have a unique frame design that allows me to ride a smaller frame while still maintaining an appropriately sized top-tube. The seattube is cranked back more than on a traditional frame thus unlike a CG frame, I don't have a lot of seatpost showing yet still have the proper pedal-to-saddle height and top-tube length. As a result, the bike handles quite well and is an excellent climbing bike. It works for me but I know others who don't like the design.

although I agree with the point;

"[2] Stiffer/less flexy frame makes for a more nimble and better accelerating bike."

I feel i have to add to this. Choosing the smallest frame isnot always the best way forward. There are other issues tobe considered, like handling for one.

Most frames are designed to position the riders weight nicely within the wheelbase.
I've seen many compact bikes that have been sized so that the riders weight is right over the front axle andrear axle. This can;t be good for handling. Descending on these bikes must be quite a twitchy affair.

I believe that if the frame requires the rider to use a stem longer than 120mm then the frame is too small.

So all things being equal and with a rider properly sized on both a compact and conventional geometry frame there should be only one difference,

Point 2 above

But baring inmind that this is also the most inefficent way to climb, I wonder how much of a rea benefit that translates into on the road when riding in a bunch.

Originally posted by denbrewers


And the supposedly higher stifness of the frame is severely compromised by that long-long post that sticks way out - like a sore thumb :D

The bottom line, these frames are not worth the premium they're being charged.

Den Brewers

- What's your favourite film?
- Kodak.

:confused:

and

:confused:

The long seatpost makes for amore comfortable ride. If you are flexing the seatpost under power, you would do better to get out of the saddle anyway.

I have two drop bar bikes.

A Merlin and a Giant TCR team.

The Giant is a much better climber and sprinter. Some of this is due to frame material, but I really do think that the compact frame shortens the tube runs and stiffens up the bottom bracket area.

As for a premium being charged, it depends on what brand you go for.

I got my frame fork and headset from Giant for $350.00.

:D

Originally posted by fubar5
Pretty cool you should mention this, because I noticed the other day that my seat post flexes quite a bit for being carbon fiber. When I bought my bike I got the smallest frame I could, which means my seat post is out a good bit.

There you go, you see? Long carbon seat posts do make the difference after all. I personally do not favour carbon posts (or fork steerers for that matter) of any kind.

Originally posted by Singlespeedster
:confused:

and

:confused:

The long seatpost makes for amore comfortable ride. If you are flexing the seatpost under power, you would do better to get out of the saddle anyway.

The Giant is a much better climber and sprinter. Some of this is due to frame material, but I really do think that the compact frame shortens the tube runs and stiffens up the bottom bracket area.

As for a premium being charged, it depends on what brand you go for.

I got my frame fork and headset from Giant for $350.00.

:D

$350 for a Giant?! I wonder where you got that one from. For that money I may as well abandon my views. My LSB sell them at $1,999.95. Not that they sell them like hot cakes exactly, but...

But to the point. As far as I can remember Giant's marketing gurus were at pains in trying to get the message across their frames were designed primarily with climbers in mind. In fact, the frames debuted in the 2000 TDF's mountain stages for the ONCE team. The marketers were saying back than their compact geometry would provide a climber with 'a more comfortable position on long mountain stages' (and I'm still wondering exactly how, since I'm still not convinced) Those were their very words, I swear. Nothing was said about their design being suited for spinters or flat-landers. Then we've seen Aqua & Sapone's Specialized that left us all wondering, 'How on Earth...?'.

The answer's straightforward enough though. Sprinting is done in out-of-the-saddle position, not in the seated one. So there shouldn't be much problem with seat post flex for sprinters. However, this is not the case with climbers, since most of the climbing is usually done in SEATED position (I'm talking about Pantanis, Armstrongs, Simonis and the likes), seat post flex will come into play there. And when a rider is confronted with a choice of whether he should opt for a bit of bumpy ride up a steep slope (done at 10-13 mph) on a diamond frame or a soft and plush and aah-so-smooth ride on a welded pack of wet noodles (with GIANT logo on them) under his bum - I think he choice would be obvious (that is, of course, if he is not a true pro, who hasn't yet reached Chippo's or Armstrong's dizzing heights, and rides whathever his team management gets him to ride on)

Den Brewers

- Do you think it's ganna rain?
- Well, it may if it chooses. I have no objection.